14 of Iraq's provinces already voted (in April and July). A 15th wasn't allowed to vote (Kirkuk). That leaves the three provinces which make up the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (Erbil, Sulaimaniya and Dahuk). Early voting -- for the security forces -- took place Thursday. The two main political parties in the KRG are the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and the Kurdistan Democratic Party. The head of the PUK is Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and the head of the KDP is KRG President Massoud Barzani. The CIA-backed Goran (or "Change") party emerged recently, post-invasion. It's a third party.

Yesterday, Prashant Rao (AFP) reported that, despite this, the PUK has been using Talbani's image in various campaign materials::The struggles facing Jalal Talabani’s bloc, which for decades has
held a duopoly on power in the autonomous Kurdistan region in northern
Iraq, could prove instructive for parties across the country. Many of them, like his bloc, remain dependent on personalities rather
than policies, ahead of national elections due in less than a year. Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has faced tough
competition from a breakaway faction as well as Islamist and Communist
groupings in its home base of Sulaimaniyah ahead of the three-province
Kurdish region’s September 21 parliamentary election."

And of course, Jalal Talbani has not been in Iraq this year at all. Last December, Iraqi
President Jalal
Talabani suffered a stroke. The incident took place late on December
17th (see the December 18th snapshot) and resulted in Jalal being admitted to Baghdad's Medical Center Hospital. Thursday, December 20th,
he was moved to Germany. He remains in Germany currently.

In Friday's snapshot, I offered:
If the PUK does less well than in 2009, there will be complaining. If
the PUK does really bad, there will be outrage. The one who will face
the most criticism may be First Lady of Iraq Hero Ibrahim Ahmed who has
been reluctant to heed the advice of PUK leaders and assume the
presidency in her husband's absence. Could she? Yes. In the plan they
outlined, Hero would not be "President Hero," she would be carrying out
the will of her husband while he remains in Germany. She would be
voting by proxy. She has refused that (just as she refused to take over
the position outright) arguing that to do so would leave the impression
that Jalal was unable to do his job.
She's correct people would assume that. But Jalal has now been out of
the country for nine months. Iraq's been without a president for nine
months. Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's recent revelation that
he was refused when he attempted to visit Jalal in the hospital last
April does not bode well for Jalal's health or his stature. And it
really makes the point for the posters in Arabic social media who
compared the May 18th photos of 'healthy' Jalal to Weekend At Bernies. (In Weekend At Bernies, two men use Bernie's corpse to pretend Bernie's still alive.)
If Hero has the most to lose in tomorrow's vote, the one with the most
to gain from the PUK suffering a big loss is Iraq's Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari who has wanted to grab the Iraqi presidency for some time
and attempted a move right after Jalal's stroke but was rebuffed by
those in party leadership loyal to Jalal and Hero.

An e-mail came in on that saying that I'm supposed to be against handicapping the race. I am. That's not what that is.

I made no prediction as to who would win. It turns out that Goran did great. The PUK did awful.

I didn't say that would happen. I didn't make predictions about how the vote would go. I did say if the PUK did poorly, blame would be placed and that the obvious target would be the First Lady.

Handicapping is when the press, for example, starts saying Nouri's going to win, Nouri's going to win, Nouri's going to win. What I did was state if the PUK did poorly (and I didn't state they would), there would be fall out.

While voting took place in northern Iraq, the day was marked by bombings in Baghdad. Reuters notes, "At least 65 people
were killed in a triple bombing that targeted a tent filled with
mourners in Baghdad's Shi'ite Muslim stronghold of Sadr City on
Saturday, police and medical sources said." Press TV adds, "In the deadliest of the attacks on
Saturday, 57 people died after two bombings were carried out near a
funeral tent in Shia-dominated Sadr City north of the capital Baghdad." The death toll continued to rise. AP notes, "Police said at least 72 people were killed and more than 120 were
wounded in that attack. One bomber drove up near the tents before
detonating his deadly payload, and another on foot blew himself up
nearby, police said."

We feel
[that] what threatens this country, [is] not the reds, but the
crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to
speak out….We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and
search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism –
and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the
havoc on the Viet Cong.

We
rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw
America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a
My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who
hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We watched pride allow
the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas,
because we couldn’t lose, and we couldn’t retreat…

We are
here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not
just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of
everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to
people in this country – the question of racism which is rampant
in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of
weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva
Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation
of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of
violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire
zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy
missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted
policy by many units in South Vietnam.

Then he notes how bellicose Kerry has gotten on war on Syria. Most of all he notes how 1971 Kerry used facts while 2013 Kerry uses appeals to emotion.

That Kerry's lost his way isn't shocking or surprising. Few can maintain their ethics over time. There's a lie that we've told -- I've told it myself -- that women become radical with age while men become more conservative. Men do become more conservative as they age -- not all, but some. But so do women.

Not all.

I haven't. I won't.

But the lie was popularized by Gloria Steinem who I have no use for anymore. She'll be hitting 80 this year, right?

So where's the radical?

She can't call out Barack, she can't defend women, she's worthless and she needs to get off the stage. Needs to get off the stage.

She's a liar.

A Socialist who couldn't get honest about it and has now handed over to anti-feminists the pinless grenade that will explode all over second wave feminism.

Gloria couldn't tell the truth while making herself a leader and we all look like liars as a result.

When you add in Betty Friedan's political secrecy, it's as though we're all going pay for their sins and lies.

Gloria's the one who has repeatedly stated women grow more radical as they age but where is her proof?

It's not in her own life.

She's grown more scared, more timid and more useless.

She's been running scared since 1976 and it has hurt the feminist movement.

Is there any purpose to her at this point?

Her weak-ass approach to feminism -- she can never move beyond Feminism 101 and pretends it's due to the fact that she's the equivalent of a pre-K teacher of feminism -- is as weak ass ever. She's an embarrassment when she goes on Stephen Colbert's show. Jane's an embarrassment as well but she's an actress. Gloria's supposed to be a political leader.

We all remember well, those of us who were in Miami in '72, how the big issue was the betrayal of the McGovern campaign on abortion. And we all remember how Gloria's big issue -- even as she publicly cried over the abortion sell out -- was that a news magazine had insisted Gloria picked out McGovern's ties.

No, it wasn't fair. Yes, it was sexist. In 2000, it would resurface with Naomi Wolf, an advisor to the Gore campaign, being said to have offered Al Gore fashion tips.

No, that's not why Naomi was with the campaign.

First off, McGovern and Gore would be idiots to hire Gloria or Naomi for fashion advice. Have you looked at how the two women dress? No one would pay good money for fashion advice from those two women.

Second off, it's sexist to assume that a woman who advises a campaign is unable to advise on ideas and strategy and must instead being offering tips on dressing.

Again, look at Gloria, look at Naomi, no one would try to emulate their 'style.' They have none.

And there's no reason for Gloria to go on Stephen Colbert's show 'satirizing' feminism. It's not satire and it's not leadership.

Gloria exists today to celebrate Gloria.

She's got no new ideas, she offers no leadership, she and her cronies are happy to talk about the awards they're handing out.

Turning feminism into a joke is not funny.

When does that radical kick in? Because all I'm seeing is a woman who grows ever more cowardly and useless, one who can't speak out against war unless a Republican's in the White House.

I think Robert Abele has written an important article. I think we move beyond readers to thinkers when we use it to explore the other disappointments. And when we call them out publicly, we make it clear that peace is not a partisan issue.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.